Supreme Court

R. v. Warner, 2002 NWTSC 21
Date: 20020314
Docket: S-1-CR2001/108

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TEPRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF:


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


- v -


LARRY JAMES WARNER


Transcript of the oral Reasons for Sentence of The Honourable Justice J. Z. Vertes, sitting in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on the 7th day of March, A.D. 2002.


APPEARANCES:

Ms. S. Kendall:   Counsel for the Crown

Ms. K. Payne:   Counsel for the Defence


THE COURT:   As counsel well appreciate, sentencing in any criminal case has a number of objectives: Those include the denunciation of unlawful conduct, the deterrence of the offender and others from the type of criminal behavior that's under consideration, and the rehabilitation of the offender.

When we come to addressing the sentencing of young offenders, and this offender certainly comes under that category, the Courts tend to emphasize the objective of rehabilitation. It is a major concern in any criminal proceeding that a young offender be rehabilitated and reformed as soon as possible, and there is a general approach that the best way to accomplish that is by minimizing, if one can, the period of incarceration and maximizing the opportunities for supervision and the opportunity for changing one's behavior. But that has to be put into perspective.

The overriding and fundamental principle of sentencing is that of proportionality. The sentence, in any case, must be proportional to the seriousness of the offence and the blameworthiness of the offender, young or old.

In this particular case, the accused has entered pleas of guilty to three offences; assault causing bodily harm, uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm, and using an imitation firearm while

[Page 1]

uttering that threat. The circumstances, in my opinion, are certainly very serious.

In order to extract payment or some kind of revenge against another person for taking some cocaine, the accused and another individual inflicted a violent beating on the victim. The accused used an imitation handgun, but of course the victim had no knowledge that it was merely an imitation, but the accused produced this imitation weapon, apparently stuck it in the victim's mouth, threatened to kill him, all over 25 grams of cocaine.

The victim suffered some serious injuries as evident from the photographs that have been entered. He was bleeding, and as is also evident from the material entered, he was very fearful of the accused and his accomplice.

The Crown characterizes it, plain and simple, as “the actions of a drug dealer collecting a debt.” And, therefore, a penitentiary sentence is required in the submission of Crown counsel.

Defence counsel takes issue with the characterization of the accused as a drug dealer. She refers to him as a 19-year-old kid who got involved with the wrong people. There may be some truth to that characterization, but it is evident to me that he wasn't just tagging along with these people, he was taking a very forceful and violent

[Page 2]

role in this entire situation, and it certainly seems to me that drugs and money were at the very heart of it.

I note that in the presentence report there is the comment that, and I quote, “Larry also reported that he would receive money for selling cocaine. Well, that makes him a drug dealer. Drug dealing attracts violence and indeed it also attracts criminal sanctions. And it seems to me that's why the accused is here in court, not because he just ended up with the wrong crowd. It is unfortunate because he is only 19 years old. I gather he has a good family background, a supportive family. All indications are that he's quite bright and that his family certainly considers this conduct out of character, and all indications are that there is no reason why he could not pursue his education and pursue a gainful livelihood. And my sincere hope is that he considers that for the future and thinks about the future instead of just looking back at the past.

I take into account the significant mitigating effect of his guilty plea. I think that does indicate a sense of responsibility on his part, it's to his credit. But, as I indicated, the offences are very serious, very violent, and violent offences must be met with serious sanctions. I agree with Crown

[Page 3]

counsel. I think the overriding objectives in this sentence must be deterrence of this individual and others by denunciation of this type of conduct. I have seriously considered the submission that a penitentiary sentence is warranted.

In my consideration, having regard particularly to this young man's age, I believe I can impose a sentence that will justify the objectives and principles of sentencing, but at the same time keep the sentence to what I consider to be a bare minimum for this conduct and provide the accused with the opportunity to try and rehabilitate himself.

Stand up, Mr. Warner. Mr. Warner, I think you're probably smart enough to understand what I have just said so I won't lecture you any further. What you have done is a very serious crime, notwithstanding whatever the circumstances, and it must be met with serious sanctions. If I were sentencing today without consideration for pretrial custody, I think having regard to the violent nature of the offences, that an appropriate disposition would be in the neighborhood of a total sentence of three years. That would take into account the mandatory minimum consecutive sentence of one year on the use of an imitation weapon offence. I am going to credit your pretrial custody with one year which, under the circumstances, I consider to be fair and

[Page 4]

generous. And the sentence I'm going to impose is as follows: On Counts 5 and 6, that is the charge of assault causing bodily harm and the charge of uttering a threat, I impose a sentence of one year less one day concurrent to each other. On the use of the imitation weapon charge, Count 1, I impose the mandatory minimum sentence of one year imprisonment consecutive to the one year less one day.

The total sentence is two years less one day. That will keep you out of the penitentiary which I think, at your age, is probably a good thing and it will give you an opportunity to pursue the programs that you've started at the Yellowknife Correctional Center.

In addition to that, there is the mandatory DNA order and I give the order in the usual terms. I expect Crown counsel will prepare the standard form order for my signature. And what is the mandatory firearm prohibition period, Ms. Kendall? Is it ten years?

MS. KENDALL:  Ten years.

THE COURT:   There will, in addition, be an order prohibiting you from having in your possession any firearms, ammunition, or explosives for a period of ten years starting from the time of your release.

Two years less one day is quite a lengthy period of time for someone who is only 19 years of age, but

[Page 5]

I'm sure you realize, Mr. Warner, that with, as we say, good behavior, you'll probably be released far sooner than two years less a day. I'm optimistic that you are smart enough and self aware enough that you will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that you don't end up either getting in with the wrong crowd again or ending up in court again.

Have I neglected anything, Ms. Kendall?

MS. KENDALL:  Victim of crime surcharge, Sir.

THE COURT:   Under the circumstances, there will be no victim of crime fine surcharge. You may sit down. Anything, Ms. Payne, that I have neglected?

MS. PAYNE:   No, Sir.

THE COURT:   Very well. I want to thank both of you, counsel, for your disposition of this matter. We're adjourned.


Certified pursuant to Practice Direction #20 dated December 28, 1987.

Sandra Burns R.P.R, C.R.R.
Court Reporter

[Page 6]